Scott Smith wrote:

Maybe you mean James. Or Jaric. Or who knows who.
In July, Banks signed on to be backup in Phoenix.


<grin> And Ricky Davis couldn't look any worse than
Wally, could he?

In Blount's case, yes. He can.

On 15 Sep 2006 10:58:01 -0700, "levi" <levi@visi.com> wrote:


Whoops. That's right, the Wolves signed James to replace
Banks. See what happens when the off season hits and
the basketball fixation gives way to baseball fixation. ;-)

I definitely didn't mean Jaric. ;-)


In some ways yes, in some ways no. I still have no regrets
about that trade.


Really? Blount seems to be an up-and-down type of player.
I recall that he had a few OK games and a few where he was
invisible. Still an upgrade from Kandi, IMO.




- Scott Smith: scott@sludgereport.org
Books Blog: http://scottsbooks.blogspot.com
Blue States Rising: http://www.bluestaterising.blogspot.com

Scott Smith wrote:

Actually, the "some ways yes, some ways no" was
the point I was trying to make about Blount. Blount's
propensity to take the long jumper and poor rebounding
gives a different dynamic from Kandi's.


Well, mebbe so Kemo Sabe. But Blount's rebounding numbers
are worse - statistically significantly worse (P=.0004) on the
defensive side, btw. And Kandi took better care of the ball.
If we look at the +/- figures closely, we see that these guys
really didn't play with the same teammates, so although
Blount looks better, it's not a good, direct, comparison.

But no matter whether he is an upgrade or not from Kandi,
he still needs to be putting in the work - with the Wolves -
if he is going to be anything but marginal.

Scott Smith wrote:

I think he is worse than Candy. At least Candy could compete
defensively and rebound, when he was really motivated. Blount flat out
can't defend or rebound. And let's not forget that the team wouldn't
have Blount or Candy if that blunder of a trade had never been made.
So we can compare Blount to Candy, or an empty roster space. Either
way, Blount loses.

ikrushlots@aol.com wrote:

Krush, I get the feeling you overinvested in Timberwolves
replica jersey futures, specifically #10 Szczerbiak ones,
last year.

The initial blunder was upping Wally's contract. After that,
the Wolves were really just lambs for the slaughter when
it finally became obvious to all that he simply can't get the
$10M/yr job done.

levi wrote:

I tried to find a Wally mention prior to your "out of the blue" post,
but I coudn't find one. Anyway, go back and reread some of my posts
after the trade. The Davis-Wally part of the trade was not my biggest
problem. It was taking on Blount and his contract.

Best,

ikrushlots@aol.com wrote:

As you wish. I recalled your shock at recieving the
news of Wally's departure and assumed by "blunder"
that you were referencing the loss of #10. I think we
all agree that overall, getting Blount/Davis/Banks was
not a good move for the Wolves - no matter who was
traded for them. And yes, Blount's contract may yet
prove to be the biggest problem over the long haul.

levi wrote:

Yeah, I was shocked. However, it wasn't because of Wally's departure.
In fact, I was willing to give the Wally-Davis part of the trade a
chance. Here is my first post about the trade, which makes it clear I
was pissed off not because of Wally, but because the Wolves traded for
Blount:

"and not because Wally is gone, as many of you may think. It is
because
of McHale's utter ineptitude in getting fair value back for his two
bargaining chips. While Candy sucks, history shows that expiring
contracts can be worth their weight in gold in trade value. So McHale
basically traded Wally for Davis (it's debatable who got the better end

here) and the expiring contract of a stiff for the longterm contract of

a stiff. STUPID move. I would have rather had Candy's contract come
off the books than be stuck with Blount's for the next few years."